May
4
I recently came across a helpful article by Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, in which he argues that it is “misleading — and dangerous — to think that religions are different paths to the same wisdom.” You can find the article here.
(The image is by Jason Lee for the Boston Globe).
Sep
9
For one of my seminars I am reading Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission by Harold Netland (2001). I would highly recommend this book to anybody interested in religious pluralism. Netland begins by discussing the cultural context that has given rise to postmodernism and religious pluralism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally salvific). Netland then proceeds to analyze and critique religious pluralism, focusing extensively on the model proposed by John Hick, one of the leading proponents of religious pluralism. Netland finishes by proposing an Evangelical theology of religions.
In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:
1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.” That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior. For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism. He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.
2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.
3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism. Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists. If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.
4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have. Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God. Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language. Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.
To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective. When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).
Aug
26
Sign at Lotus Temple
Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments
As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:
“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”
As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”
The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.
I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.
Aug
23
In my last visit to India I had the opportunity to visit the Baha’i Lotus Temple in Delhi. The temple was built in 1986 and is known as the Taj Mahal of the 20th century.
The Lotus Temple is open to people of all faiths and each day they have a prayer time where representatives from different religions like Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity are invited to come and offer prayers up to God.
This pluralistic outlook is at the heart of the Baha’i faith. Nevertheless, they still claim that they are the closest to the truth since the last prophet that God sent was their own, namely, Bahaullah (1817-1892). He claimed to be “the Supreme Manifestation of God.” Although they take pride in their pluralistic position, they cannot live it out consistently. This is evident by the fact that they end up claiming superiority over all other religions.
Jul
2
Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part II)
Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 3 Comments
Second, Mason rejects the idea that there is only one way to God for a variety of reasons, but I wanted to respond to a couple of them. He says about God, “you are un-namable, unknowable, all we have is metaphor.” I agree that the human mind is incapable of fully grasping God. Thus, he is incomprehensible, but that does not mean that we can know nothing about God. In his song Mason actually claims to know a lot about God.
I also agree that much of our language about God must be in metaphor since God is completely above and beyond us. We must use figures of speech, yet this does not mean that the differences between religions are simply linguistic differences. For example, monotheistic religions believe that God created the universe and is distinct from it. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no creator God because the universe has always existed. God is either identical to the universe or he does not even exist. These differences cannot be explained away by appealing to semantics.
Moreover, Mason, as religious pluralists must do, must reject the idea that God has objectively revealed himself. If God has not revealed himself to humanity then all differences between religions can be attributed to people holding false ideas (i.e they made it up or just got it wrong).
However, if God has revealed himself and has taught truth about himself and creation then we no longer are at liberty to say that all religions lead to God unless he has said so. If God has revealed himself, what he has said about the way to him is very important. For example, according to Islam, Allah teaches that the way to heaven is earned by following the 5 Pillars or by becoming a martyr. In contrast, according to the New Testament the way to heaven cannot be earned but is received by trusting in Jesus Christ’s death for one’s sins. Moreover, in the Qur’an, Allah says that he has no offspring (i.e Jesus is not the Son of God) and that the worst sin one can do is adding anything to Allah (i.e Trinity). In the Qur’an, Allah condemns Christian doctrine. On the other hand, when Jesus was on earth he said that he was the only way to heaven; thus, he excluded all other paths to God. Repentance of sins and trust in him are the only ways to heaven. The Qur’an and Jesus cannot both be right. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right since they clearly contradict each other.
Ignoring these differences is an affront to both religious traditions. The main problem with those who hold to religious pluralism is that they do not take any religion seriously and they somehow think that they can stand above all religious traditions from the past and present and say to them “You are all pretty much the same. You are simply different paths to the same God.” They accuse religious exclusivists of being arrogant simply for believing what their sacred texts say while they see themselves as humble when they place themselves above all religious traditions and declare them all equally valid.
Jun
26
Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part I)
Filed Under General religion, Religious Pluralism | 5 Comments
In his newest album, In the Ever, Mason Jennings includes this provocative song:
“I Love You and Buddha Too”
Oh Jesus, I love you
And I love Buddha too
Ramakrishna, Guru Dev
Tao Te Ching and Mohammed
Why do some people say
There there is just one way
To love you God and come to you
We are all a part of you
You are un-nameable
You are unknowable
All we have is metaphor
That’s what time and space are for
Is the universe your thought
You are and you are not
You are many, You are one
Ever ending, just begun
Alright, alright, alright
I love you and Buddha too
Mason Jennings is probably my favorite musician. I have listened to him for years and always enjoy his songs. Actually, my favorite concert of all time was a concert of his I went to in Tucson, Az a few years back.
In “I Love You and Buddha Too” Mason is clearly promoting Religious Pluralism, i.e. all religions are equally valid ways to God. The problem with Religious Pluralism and with Mason’s view is that many religions contradict each other. Thus, Mason is forced to reshape the teachings of various religions in order to make his point.
1. First, he incorrectly applies the Christian teaching about loving God (i.e by loving Jesus) to other religions. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, never taught that people should love him. This would imply desire and attachment, which is the opposite of what he wanted. The Buddha actually diverted attention from himself at all cost.
I am not sure why Mason included “Tao Te Ching” (maybe because it fit in the song) because this is the title of a collection of works from philosophical Taoism. There is no concept in Taoism about loving “Tao Te Ching.”
Although there is the concept of loving Muhammad in Islam, especially in the hadith, it is not equivalent to Christians loving Jesus. Muhammad is the last prophet, the perfect man, but he is not to be an object of worship (at least in orthodox Islam).
Mason adopts the Christian belief that God is a personal deity that is to be loved and erroneously tries to apply it to other religions.
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos